Pezhetairoi, the Guards and Hypaspists.

[Paralus]

There is good evidence that it was the aesthetairoi who in fact were Philip's and Alexander's regularly hoplite armed troops - a proposition well argued by EM Anson.

Now here I would "vehemently disagree" :lol: :lol: ....but I repeat, if this fascinating subject, with fragmentary evidence for both points of view, is to be re-visited, it should be by re-opening the Hypaspist thread, not here........
Meanwhile, back in Sparta.....

I’m a naughty boy as I answered this on the thread in which it was baldy stated. Nevertheless, I bow to editorial fiat and transfer the lot to here: a hypaspist thread.

Confusingly, in Hellenistic times the name ‘Peltasts’ was used for the guard element of the Macedonian Phalanx, who carried Peltai (c.f. use of ‘Hypaspist’ = ‘aspis carrier’ for Macedonian Guards earlier in Alexander’s army).

Paullus will vehemently disagree - nicely enough - but far too much is made of aspis in the name hypaspist. Indeed there is almost an adolescent's fixation on size (er..of the shield) in this debate. I often wonder why there is no debate on foot size when these hypapspists were pezos-hetairoi for surely it was their feet that defined them?

Towards the end of Philip's reign - if not at the beginning of Alexander's - the king's foot guard - the pezhetairoi - took the titilature "hypaspists of the Companions". This then differentiated them from their former title, pezhetairoi which from then on applied to the heavy infantry, aside from the aesthetairoi, as a group. These units were the kings' guard and the royal hypaspists - the agema of the hypaspists - were literally the king's shield bearers. A job aptly performed by the royal hypaspists around Alexander in the Malli town including Peucestas.

Diodorus (17.98.5), when relating this incident, interestingly notes the following:

The Macedonians were still busy fighting along the wall. Alexander seized a ladder, leaned it against the walls of the citadel, and clambered up holding a light shield above his head. So quick was he to act that he reached the top of the wall before the defenders could forestall him.

Alexander is on foot and is without any doubt, as the narrative goes on to show, surrounded by his hypaspists. He ascends the wall under his "light" shield - the Greek being pelte (as at 99.3). It is unlikely, one might think, that he has decided to ascend the wall under a different shield to that used by his hypaspists. Why would the king decline a hoplite's aspis in favour of a pelte? Becuase it is likely that is what was being carried by them here. Aside from Peucestas who was bearing the king's ceremonial shield.

There is good evidence that it was the aesthetairoi who in fact were Philip's and Alexander's regularly hoplite armed troops - a proposition well argued by EM Anson. The hypaspists were a unit that went well back into Philip's reign and were cross trained in all manner of armament. A fact exemplified by their actions over the course of Alexander's campaigns and afterward.

Many epigoni were armed and trained in the Macedonian manner and were much sought after in the wars following Alexander's death. These troops provided invaluable service to the Diadochoi and could hold the field against any infantry. Paraetecene and Gabiene demonstrate that they'd much to learn from Philip's and Alexander's veterans though.